Mukund Bankatlal Bhattad, Solapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

MA 41/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4373 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Peak credit; Retraction
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / MA NO.41/PN/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.589/PN/2014) '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI MUKUND BANKATLAL BHATTAD, 69B, JODBHAVI PETH, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR 413002 PAN NO. AATPB9445P . / APPLICANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : S SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REQUESTS THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY CERTAIN MISTAKES THAT H AVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A DATED 30-11 -2007 HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28-12-2007 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.99,25,712/-. IN THIS CASE A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE / DATE OF HEARING :12.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:11.04.2016 2 MA NO.41/PN/2015 I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED DURING WHICH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.45,92,723/- WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ANSWER TO QUESTION NOS. 25 AND 29 HAD ACCEPTED THE TOTAL UNDISCLOS ED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,00,484/-. SIMILARLY, SIMULTANEOUS SURVEY ACTION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED U/S.133A IN THE CASE OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S. SAIRAM TRADING COMPANY DURING WHICH EXCESS STOCK OF RS.1,44,663/- WAS FO UND. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.28 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,11,873/- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS. HOWEVER, IN TH E RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.28 LAKHS WHICH WAS DECLARED DURING THE S EARCH AS PEAK INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. THE AS SESSEE HOWEVER HAD INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,11,873/- IN THE TAXABLE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS. 2.1 THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE TOT AL INCOME AT RS.1,14,66,740/- WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS.45,05,779/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND, RS.1,44,663/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STOCK, RS.28 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED SALES AND RS.7,35,497 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SUNDRY DEBTORS WAS ADDED BY THE AO APART FROM VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.28 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT/INVESTMENT. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO RS.17,23,824/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3 MA NO.41/PN/2015 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH E XCESS CASH OF RS.45,05,779/- WAS FOUND OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACCEPT ED RS.45,00,484/-. SIMILARLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.28 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING PEAK INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED TRAN SACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,11,873/- B EING ENTRIES NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOU NT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS. WE FIND THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.28 LAKHS SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECL ARED THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE UNRECOR DED SUNDRY DEBTORS AND A PART OF THE UNACCOUNTED STOCK IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME. WE FIND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.28 L AKHS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTAN TIATE WITH CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS BASED ON WRONG FACTS. ACCORDING T O THE CIT(A) THE ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND BY MAKING SUCH STATEMENT THE ASSE SSEE PREVENTED THE AO FROM MAKING FURTHER INVESTIGATION O N THIS ISSUE. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE CASH FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AMOUNTING TO RS.45,05,779/- AND THE NET ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS IS RS.10,76,176/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED SUNDRY DEBTORS, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.28 LAKHS DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BEING THE PEAK INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND SALES IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE SAID AMOUNT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE A BOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BOTH ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.28 LAKHS BEING THE PEAK INVESTMENT IN THE UNRECORDED PUR CHASES AND SALES. THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AMOUNTING TO RS.45, 05,779/-. THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING A STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H AND BY NOT RETRACTING THE SAME IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER HAS PR EVENTED THE DEPARTMENT FROM MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRIES. THEREFORE , THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AN AMO UNT OF RS.28 LAKHS IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CASH FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT RS.45,05,779/- AND THE UNACCOUNTED DEBT ORS AT RS.19,76,176/- CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.28 LAKHS CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH H AS ADMITTED UNRECORDED CREDIT SALES MADE BY SHRI SATNARA YANAN AND SHRI RAJA KOLI AMOUNTING TO RS.10,08,141/- AND RS.8, 03,732/- RESPECTIVELY BOTH TOTALING TO RS.18,11,873/-. THE AB OVE AMOUNT OF RS.18,11,873/- RELATES TO THE UNRECORDED CREDIT SALES M ADE BY THE TWO SALESMAN OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E. SHRI SATNARAYANAN AND SHRI RAJA KOLI. WE FIND THE AO AT PARA 4.8 OF THE ORDER HAS A NALYSED AND HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT INCLUDES DEBTORS TO T HE EXTENT OF 4 MA NO.41/PN/2015 RS.10,76,176/- RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. T HEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,76,176/- OUT OF THE SURRENDER OF RS.18,11,873/- DECLARED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECO RDED SUNDRY DEBTORS FORMS A PART OF THE PEAK INVESTMENT OF RS.28 LAKHS IN THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. WE THEREFOR E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS.28 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ONLY AN AMO UNT OF RS.17,23,824/- ONLY CAN BE SUSTAINED. 16. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT AFTER DECLARING THE AMOUNT OF RS.28 LAKHS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED THE STATEMENT IMMEDIA TELY OR THEREAFTER. ONLY IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE SAME IN HIS TOTAL INCOM E ALTHOUGH HE HAD ACCEPTED THE CASH OF RS.45,00,484/- AND THE DE BTORS OF RS.18,11,873/-. BY MAKING A DECLARATION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE PREVENTED THE DEPARTMENT FROM MAKING FURTH ER ENQUIRIES. IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT ADMISSION BY A PERSON IS A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PERSON MAKING A STATEMENT STOPS THE OPPOSITE PARTY FROM MAKING FURTHER INVESTIGATION. A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4)OF THE I.T. ACT STANDS ON AN EVEN STRONGER FOOTING. SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE US THAT THE STAT EMENT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH I S UNTRUE OR FALSE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE AR GUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITION OF THE SAME WILL A MOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. HOWEVER, AS ALREADY MENTIONED EARL IER, THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOTED IN PARA 4.8 OF HIS ORDER THAT DEBTOR S TO EXTENT OF RS.10,76,176/- RELATES TO THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS AS EVI DENCED BY BUNDLE NO.4, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO REL IEF OF ONLY RS.10,76,176/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.28 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BEING PEAK INVESTMENT IN UNRECORDED TRANSACTION S IN PURCHASES AND SALES. 17. SO FAR AS THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARVIND M. KARIY A (SUPRA), THE SAME IN OUR OPINION IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN SHARE TRANSACTIONS ALLEGED TO BE PENNY STOCK COMPANIES W HERE FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN CONNIVAN CE WITH SOME BROKERS. HOWEVER, HERE THE ISSUE IS ADDITION OF PEAK I NVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS WHICH IS BASED ON THE ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE ACCORDINGLY HOL D THAT THE CASE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS.10,76,176/- ONLY AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.17,23,824/- IS SUSTAINED. THE GRO UND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH READ AS UNDER : 5 MA NO.41/PN/2015 THE APPLICANT MR. MUKUND BANKATLAL. BHATTAD HEREBY BEGS TO STATE AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.589/PN/2015 FOR AY 2007-08 DATED 26.08.2015 IS RE CEIVED 0N 15.09.2015. 2. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAID ORDER THE APPLICANT BE LIEVES THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE OCCURRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACTS RELATING TO GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE MISTAKE THE RELEVANT FACTS AR E BRIEFLY NARRATED HEREBELOW: - I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS, 28 LAKH S ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK INVESTMENT USED IN THE CIRCULATION OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND SALES. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE DECLARAT ION FOR THIS ADDITION OF RS. 28 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 10,76,17 6/- WHICH REPRESENTED THE DEBTORS OUT OF THE AMOUNT UTILI SED IN UNACCOUNTED SALES AND PURCHASES. II. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ON EXAMINING THE RELEV ANT ISSUE AND PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT APPLICANT HAS OFFERED RS. 45,00,484/- AS INCOME THAT REPRESENTED THE EXCESS CASH FOUND IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AGAIN THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS WAS NOT REQUIR ED TO BE OFFERED. III. THEREFORE HAVING FOUND TWO DECLARATIONS ONE OF RS.45,00,484/- FOR EXCESS CASH FOUND AND ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS UTILISED IN EFFECTING THE UNACCOUNTED SALES AND P URCHASES, APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS TH AT HAS BEEN UTILISED IN EFFECTING UNACCOUNTED SALES AND PURCHASES OB VIOUSLY WAS OUT OF THE SAME EXCESS CASH FOUND OF RS. 45,00,484/-. TH EREFORE THIS ADDITION OF RS. 28 LAKHS GETS COVERED IN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 45,00,484/- AND CONSEQUENTLY ITS SEPARATE OFFERING WAS NOT WARRANTED. IV. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF RETRACTION OF THE DECLARATI ON BUT WAS AN EXPLANATION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS GETS COVERED IN RS. 45,00,484/- AND THEREFORE DECLARATION STANDS. IT IS NO T WITHDRAWN. V. THEREFORE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT SEPARATE ADDITI ON OF RS. 28 LAKHS CONSTITUTED TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE . VI. THEREFORE AT THE OUTSET THERE WAS NO RETRACTION OF THE DECLARATION OF RS. 28 LAKHS AS AGREED BY THE APPELLANT . VII. THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S VERSION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTED IN PURCHASES. SUBMISSIO N WAS MADE THAT IN THAT CASE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH THERE SH OULD HAVE BEEN THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK OF RS. 28 LAKHS, WHILE TH E STOCK DIFFERENCE FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY RS. 1, 44,663/- AND THAT TOO HAS BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A). 6 MA NO.41/PN/2015 VIII. THUS THE ADDITION DECLARED OF RS. 28 LAKHS STAND S ACCEPTED IN THE FORM OF DEBTORS OF RS 10,76,176/- ARISING OUT OF U NACCOUNTED SALES AND PURCHASES EFFECTED AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 17,2 3,824/- IN THE FORM OF CASH INCLUDED IN RS. 45,00,484/-. THUS THI S DECLARATION HAS NOT BEEN RETRACTED AND HENCE NOT A CASE OF RETRAC TION OF ADMISSION. NEITHER THERE IS A CASE THAT CASH OF RS. 17,23,824/- IS FOUND IN ADDITION TO RS. 45,00,484/-. IN THAT CASE CASH FOUND W OULD HAVE BEEN RS. 62,24,308/- WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS NOT THE FACT. IX. ON THE PREMISES OF THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS ON RECORD KINDLY REFER TO PARA 15 AND 16 OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER HAS ONLY RELIED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT APPELLANT ,HAS RETRACTED THE DECLARATION AND SUST AINED THE PARTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 17,23,824/- BY ALLOWING THE RE DUCTION OF RS. 10,76,176/- FOR DEBTORS EMERGING OUT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES AND PURCHASES ALREADY INCLUDED IN RS.28 LAKHS. THUS AS STATED ABOVE AND WITH UTMOST DUE RESPECT, THE HO N'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPLICANT HAS RETR ACTED THE DECLARATION MADE OF RS. 28 LAKHS WHILE THE FACT OF TH E MATTER AND EVIDENTLY FOUND ON RECORD IS THERE IS NO SUCH RETRACTI ON AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS AS AGREED IS OFFERED AND STANDS IN CLUDED IN DEBTORS OF RS. 10,76,176/- AND CASH OF RS.17,23,824/- I NCLUDED IN EXCESS CASH OF RS. 45,00,484/- OFFERED. OUT OF THIS CASH OF RS. 45,00,484/- THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 8 LAKHS WAS UTILISED IN EFFECTING UNACCOUNTED SALES AND PURCHASES FO R WHICH DECLARATION WAS MADE. IN PARA 16 OF THE ORDER THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'B LE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT 'IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT AFTER DECLA RING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED THE STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER' . SUBMITTED THAT AT THE OUTSET THERE IS NO RETRACTION A T ALL. THEREFORE THIS OBSERVATION IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A TH IS DECLARATION OF RS. 28 LAKHS IS OFFERED FOR DEBTORS AT RS. 10,76,176/- A ND FOR CASH RS. 17,23,824/- WHICH IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CASH OF RS. 45,00,484/- DULY OFFERED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RET RACTION AND IN FACT DECLARATION HAS BEEN DULY OFFERED. THEREFORE IN APPELLANT'S CONSIDERED AND HUMBLE OPINIO N IT IS NOT CORRECT TO OBSERVE THAT 'DEPARTMENT WAS PREVENTED FRO M MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRY'. THEREFORE ALL THE OBSERVATIONS WHIC H ARE MADE IN PARA 15 BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT DECLARATION H AS RETRACTED ARE NOT CORRECT. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE ISSUE IS ADDITION OF PEAK INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AND THA T PEAK INVESTMENT OF RS. 28 LAKHS DOES GET COVERED IN CASH OF R S. 45,00,484/- TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17,23,824/- AND DEB TORS OF RS.10,76,176/- OFFERED. 7 MA NO.41/PN/2015 X. THE APPLICANT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THERE BEING N O RETRACTION OF THE DECLARATION OF RS. 28 LAKHS THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT APPLICANT H AS RETRACTED THE DECLARATION AND SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS 17, 23,824/- IS NOT CORRECT ON FACTS. THIS IN THE HUMBLE AND CONSIDERED OP INION OF THE APPLICANT BEING THE MISTAKE OF APPRECIATION OF: FACT S IT DOES CONSTITUTE MISTAKE OF FACT APPARENT FROM RECORD AND R ECTIFIABLE U/S 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPLICANT HAS PAID RS. 50/- TOWARDS THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION FEE. THE CHALLAN IN ENCLOSED. THIS MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED IN TIME. PRAYER : - THE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THIS MISTAKE OF FACT BE APPRE CIATED AND RECTIFIED U/S 254. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACT ED THE DECLARATION MADE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.28,00,000/- IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED SINCE THE SAME GETS COVERED IN TH E EXCESS CASH OF RS.45,00,484/- AND THAT CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PARA 15 OF THE ORDER ARE NOT CORRECT. WE HAVE AGAIN G ONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS GIVEN AT PARA 15 TO 17 OF OUR ORDER, VIS--V IS THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REQUESTS T HE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY CERTAIN MISTAKES WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELIEVES TO HAVE OCCURRED. SUCH REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO RE CTIFY THE ORDER U/S.254 OF THE I.T. ACT, IN OUR OPINION, AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF ITS OWN ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW . THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE AND SPEAKING ORD ER AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS ON RECORD, THE DECLARATION MA DE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY AND THE RETURN FILED IN 8 MA NO.41/PN/2015 RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A AND HAS GIVEN REASONS AS T O HOW & WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,23,824/- HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING LY DISMISS THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11-04-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 11 TH APRIL, 2016. LRH'K ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ ( ) S / THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. $ S / THE CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. 6. ' **+, +, IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' //TRUE COPY // ' * //TRUE COPY// 12 * + / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY +, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE